I was looking up pucca hairstyle, and there were results for both western and asian women.

I still don't understand why anyone would pick a western woman over irregular one. Just look at the pictures. Asians are superior in every way, but the main point is that they look cute and don't age like shit.

I live in a rather big city and we have some foreigners from Asia here (probably mostly students as we have few universities) and I must say Asian women are rather ugly. The only Asian woman that I met that had beautiful face was from Japan I think but she was so skinny it seemed very unattractive and i wouldn't like her as gf. And her face wasn't really super extraordinary compared to local women population anyway.I think people like OP don't really know how actually asian women look like because they fell victim to korean jews by eating too much kpop memes.

>>17888>>17889I don't think people think it's the norm, but rather they overestimate the average looks because they rarely see "normal" people. But it happens with them too. Many of them think when coming to Europe that everyone is white and tall and handsome with blond hair and blue eyes.

On the other hand asian teenagers just look ugly because they are not allowed to wear different clothes, makeup or hair color to school. Western people would look as ugly if we had such restrictions. After graduating and maturing asian girls start to look really pretty.

>>17908thanks fellow patrician>>17913Also maybe they don't look good because the hairstyle is Asian in origin? In the same sense that a black woman would look good with an afro while Asian or white women would look retarded with it.

>>17919Maybe in Asia (Hanguk) it's a popular hairstyle spread even by k-pop dancers/singers/performers/whatevers who mostly look good (or made to look good) and in western countries (USA, Western Urp) only weeaboos know about it who follow East Asian trends but they are ugly as sin, Bernafattes and similars.

>>17981There aren't any Sami in Denmark. None whatsoever. We're not Mongols like the Finns and Swedes. Then again, this is coming from a Hungarian. HUNgarian. From the Huns, INVADING nomads from China. You have the most Asian DNA of any European, aside from the Greeks (part Turkish), Bulgarians (Bulgars, the Turkic people), Albanians, and Yugoslavs. >>17982What about Danelaw? You probably have some Scandinavian DNA, unless you're that Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, or Northern Irish filth.

>>17984Well muh heritage is mostly potatonigger, but they had their fair share of ViKANG rapings so I guess there might be a little.

Honestly though who really knows that much about their heritage beyond recent relatives in the first place? Unless either your ancestors were autistic aristocrats who kept family trees or you pay for some shitty website like Ancestry.com or whatever.

>>17984Just as that map rightly indicates verifying it's reliability. Hungarians are 100% Mongols, you can check in pdf related.It says:We found that some 40% of the conquerors had East Asian origin, where the geographic origin of the best matching samples nicely corresponded to the region of the ancient Xiongnu empire. Other 40% of the samples had best matches with modern people from Scandinavia, Germany, or other regions in Western Europe. A smaller third group of the samples (6.7%) matched modern samples from the Caucasus region and the Near East.The full thesis in Hungarian gives more exact numbers: 41,5 %-a Xiongnu (Huns), 42,7% Skandinavian-Germanic (most likely the first conquered Ostrogoths), 6,7% Caucasian (most likely the Alan), and the others had smaller Mongol origins, like 2,2% Slavic. Because Hungarians are all 100% Asians this means their ancestors was Asians, in the greatest number the Mongol Ostrogoths from Skandinavia, hence proving that Skandinavia is one cradle of Western Mongol civilization.It's not just the Samis. Look at appendix #2. Danes share large chunk of their haplogroups with Samis, Finns and even Russians. And very similar to Germans who are typical Slavs who are ofc Mongols.Danes speak an Indo-"European" language which - being an Asiatic language - originates from Asia and in fact spread to Europe later - much later - than Finno-Ugric languages.The whole point of haplogroups is moot tho as the Cro Magnons themselves are migrated from Asia to Europe...Red and blonde hair is also typical Mongol feature, just look up Cumans and their names (like Polovtsy). Even Chinese mentioned that Huns are red headed.Skandis has also the same soul as steppe people but insted of riding on horses on the sea of steppe grass and raiding neighbors they rode ships on the seas and raided neighbours. They are motivated to travel faraway lands just the same.So instead of resisting you should embrace your heritage Herr Genghisson and practice throat singing as your ancestors did.

>>17993Why are the Huns seperated from Ostrogoths and Alans, implying that their DNA is seperate from that of the Huns? Why did cotemporary text never describe Ostrogoths and Alans as Mongoloids? Ammianus Marcellinus describes the Alans as being tall, and having European-like eyes, a phenotype that would be impossible for Mongols. "Nearly all the Alani are men of great stature and beauty; their hair is somewhat yellow, their eyes are terribly fierce" similar to the Germanic tribes near the Rhine (Tacitus' Germania). Also the Indo-Europeans didn't migrate from Asia, the "out of India" theory was a 19th century Hindu nationalist hypothesis, it has been proven wrong several times, the genetic homeland of the Indo-Europeans was likely in the southern Cacasus, Georgia, Armenia, Iran, and Azerbaijan. Also, Mongols can't into ships. We can.>>17990Scandinavians kinda always were autistic artistocrats. In the Nordic countries, there's a database of all Scandinavians. A son takes his father's name as a surname, for example, Leif Erikson, son of Erik the Red. One guy in Iceland named Gunnar Olafsson was able to trace his lineage back to Harald Hardrada. So yes, I do know my ancestors.

>>18005There are lots of different Mongols with different haplogroups, for example Finnish and Hungarian haplos are barely related, so it isn't a surprise that Hunnic, Ostrogothic and Alanic haplos aren't either.Lack of description isn't proof against anything, maybe they just forgot. The Alanic descriptions of A.M. is very typical for Mongols, we know for example the Hunnic leader Liu Yuan (the founder of the Northern Hun state about 300AD) was 184 cm tall and had red strains in his long beard or He-lian Bobo (founder of Hunnic Xia about 400AD) was 195(!) cm tall.The attitudes of Ammianus Marcellinus and Jordanes toward Huns is very hostile, they hated them, their account on the Huns had the purpose to paint them as subhuman monsters, so whatever they wrote about them it needs to be taken with a few kg salt.>similar to the Germanic tribes near the RhineGermanic tribes who are Slavs who are Mongols.>the Indo-Europeans didn't migrate from Asia>homeland was southern Cacasus, Georgia, Armenia, Iran, and AzerbaijanBut southern Cacasus, Georgia, Armenia, Iran, and Azerbaijan are in Asia.>Mongols can't into ships.One great seafaring nation is the Mongoloid Chinese! They even reached Africa and had famous pirates. Also Mongols launched a big armada to counquer Japan. And they failed just like the Western Mongol Danes and Norvegians with the conquest of the Small Island.Alans were steppe people btw and their last groups the Yaziges settled in Hungary with the Cumans and became the ancestors of modern Hungarians. Who are 100% Mongols therefor Yazigs had to be ones as well.Pics related, typical Mongols of Hungary.

>>18015>There are lots of different Mongols with different haplogroups, for example Finnish and Hungarian haplos are barely related, so it isn't a surprise that Hunnic, Ostrogothic and Alanic haplos aren't either.Lack of description isn't proof against anything, maybe they just forgot. The Alanic descriptions of A.M. is very typical for Mongols, we know for example the Hunnic leader Liu Yuan (the founder of the Northern Hun state about 300AD) was 184 cm tall and had red strains in his long beard or He-lian Bobo (founder of Hunnic Xia about 400AD) was 195(!) cm tall.The attitudes of Ammianus Marcellinus and Jordanes toward Huns is very hostile, they hated them, their account on the Huns had the purpose to paint them as subhuman monsters, so whatever they wrote about them it needs to be taken with a few kg salt.Okay, the Huns were tall. Were the "fierce eyes" referring to Mongoloid or Europoid eyes?>Germanic tribes who are Slavs who are Mongols.When will people stop associating the Germanics with Slavs? "Hey, didja know the Old Prussians were Balts therefore Germans are Slavs?". They aren't Slavs, they're nothing like Slavs, both phenotypically, linguistically, and culturally. >But southern Caucasus, Georgia, Armenia, Iran, and Azerbaijan are in AsiaWho knows at this point, some people consider the southern Caucasus Asian, some European, and some transcontinental. Indo-Europeans did originate there, however.>One great seafaring nation is the Mongoloid Chinese! They even reachced Africa and had famous pirates. Also, Mongols launched a big armada to conquer Japan. And they failed just like the Western Mongol Danes and Norwegians with the conquest of the Small Island.Yes, and if I remember correctly, Indonesians were able to sail through the Indian Ocean all the way from Borneo to Madagascar. Also, keep in mind Mongols launched TWO big expeditions to Japan, and failed, and also tried to conquer the Mapajahit empire, but failed. If the Mongols had a good enough navy to conquer those empires, they'd reach Australia. We had a good enough navy to conquer England, discover Iceland and Greenland, and even reach North America. Huge difference. Also, the haplogroups shared by Danes and Sami is Europoid, R1a, and R1b. We don't share N.

>>18016>Were the "fierce eyes" referring to Mongoloid or Europoid eyes?Most of what in the sources has no anthropological importance.>associating the Germanics with Slavs>They aren't Slavs, they're nothing like SlavsI doesn't matter because both are Mongols. Also even the farthest living Germanics, the English, are the sames as Russians (pic #1 n #2)>Also, the haplogroups shared by Danes and Sami is Europoid, R1a, and R1b.R1a and R1b classic Mongol haplos. Both are main components in Mongol folks like Hungarians and Bashkirs.

>>18031Even worse is when people claim that Genghis Khan wasn't actually a Mongol. I've seen people say that Genghis Khan was a Slav. In particular, this woman (her official channel is newearth, this video is apparently a mirror). https://youtube.com/watch?v=TbWBj-YulAI [Embed]This is basically Slavocentrism. She uses medieval maps that mash in Eastern Europe and Central Asia together to say that since a Medieval era map that doesn't show a distance between Eastern Europe and Central Asia means that the Mongoloid Central Asians were actually Europoid, in that case the Tatars. She also points out that Marco Polo depicted Genghis Khan's great grandchildren as part Russian, although Genghis' children very much likely had Russian wives. She then says that an Arab historian depicted Genghis Khan as having red hair and green eyes (both common features among Mongoloids), so that Genghis must be white. She also said the Goths were Slavs and not Germanic, because of maps depicting their settlement in Crimea (which predates the Slavic settlement). I mean, we have inferiority complexes, I'm a Serb, after all, but damn, this just takes our Slavic inferiority complex to new heights.

>>18042Technically it's somewhat similar to Turboslavism, but claiming that EVERY relevant nation was Slavic. They claim that every nation from Albania to Mongolia is of Slavic origin. Skanderbeg? Well, he's right next to Serbia, so Slavic. Genghis Khan? He had Russian grandchildren (as described by Marco Polo), so Slavic. Amerindians? Well, blue eyed sculptures exist (that don't really have an Eastern European phenotype) in Chile and Peru, so Slavic. The Rigveda was of Slavic origin. Have you seen those pyramids in Egypt? No, the largest pyramids in the world are from Bosnia and Herzegovina. It doesn't matter that we conquered ALL of Siberia, all of Central Asia, the entire Caucasus, and even conquered Alaska once, we need more Slavic pseudohistory.

>>17876I didn't know Mongols are so important to Europe's history. They probably taught about it in high school but I didn't pay any attention. But then again I never knew much about history in general. Only began to memorize big labels like Slavs and Goths recentlyGood to know though. 20th century was a great century for China. Like exponentially more connected and informed.

>>18042>>18047Probably every nation has similar tendencies, we also do have such claims ofc most likely the worst one is Jesus being Hungarian. Well actually the original claim was that Jesus was Parthian, and Parthians were Scythians and Scythians were Hungarians. There are others as well like originating from Mu and such, also I have thoughts on this and on our original topic too. Not the original original in OP but this Mongol thing. But then I would have to stop larping and I'm not sure it's the wise choice.Praise Tengri.

>>18050>Well actually the original claim was that Jesus was Parthian, and Parthians were Scythians and Scythians were Hungarians.

An old joke:

Frenchman, Jew and Russian arguing about ethnicity of Adam and Eve. Frenchman says:- They were French. Only a French person could sacrifice part of his body - his rib - for woman!Jew says:- No, they were Jews. Only Jews in such old and savage times could really get an apple.Russian:- No, they surely were Russians. Only Russian can own one apple, sit with naked ass on grass but think that he is in heaven.